SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Motions to Dismiss, Limitations of Liability, and More

January 23, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Remember BAE Sys. Ordnance Sys. V. Fluor Fed. Sols? I examined that case on two occasions previously here at Construction Law Musings. Previously the discussions were about the mix (or lack thereof) between fraud and contract and about how careful contract drafting is key. In the most recent opinion in this ongoing litigation from March of 2022, the Court examined various motions to dismiss the Complaint and Counterclaim in the matter. As a reminder, the basic facts are as follows. The US Army Joint Munitions Command (“Army”) contracted with BAE Systems OrdnanceSystems, Inc. (“BAE”) to operate and maintain the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (“RFAAP”)under a basic ordering agreement (“BOA”). Under BOA Task Order 002, BAE contracted to replace the legacy NC facility at the RFAAP with a newer one (the “NC Project”). Initially, BAE subcontracted the NC Project to Lauren Engineers & Constructors (“Lauren”), but later terminated Lauren. Despite terminating Lauren, BAE’s timeline to complete the NC Project remained unchanged and BAE was required to use Lauren’s design for the NC Project. BAE gave interested bidders access to the Lauren design and other related documents and required the selected subcontractor to perform in accordance with the 85% complete Lauren design, that the Lauren design could be relied on for accuracy, and the selected subcontractor only had to complete the unfinished parts. Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC (“Fluor”) submitted a request for information (“RFI”) asking BAE about the standards referenced in the SOW. Fluor was unable to determine the completeness of the Lauren design but relied on BAE’s assertion that the design was 85% complete. BAE rejected Fluor’s initial bid as being too high given what BAE had already paid Lauren for its design and told Fluor to lower its bid because the design was close to complete. Fluor lowered its price and submitted another bid proposal that outlined a firm-fixed-price design/build that forecasted 32 months to complete the NC Project. BAE awarded Fluor an Undefinitized Contract Action (“UCA”) in the amount of $9 million dollars, later increased to $32 million. Under the UCA, Fluor began procuring materials and physical construction before a formal subcontract was agreed upon. On December 17, 2015, BAE and Fluor agreed to a fixed-price design and build subcontract (the “Subcontract”) in which Fluor agreed to design, construct, and partially commission the NC Project for $245,690,422.00, which included money spent already in the UCA. When this litigation began, Fluor was scheduled to complete its work by December 2020, 2.5 years beyond the originally agreed-upon completion date. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Quarter Four a Good One for Luxury Homebuilder

December 20, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
Toll Brothers has announced that their fourth-quarter net income is $2.35 per share, which they attribute in part to an income tax benefit. Their revenue, at $632.8 million, easily exceeded analysts’ projections of $565.1 million. Additionally, their number of signed contracts jumped seventy percent while their cancellation rate dropped nearly half to 4.9 percent. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Mandatory Attorneys’ Fee Award for Actions Brought Under the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act

September 22, 2016 — Lindsay K. Taft – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
In Washington, RCW 19.122 (the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act or “Call Before You Dig” statute) provides for the protection of underground utilities. The statute was recently updated in 2013 and provides that homeowners and contractors must call “811” to schedule a “utility locate” prior to commencing any excavation. Failure to do so can result in steep penalties, as well as a mandatory fee award for the prevailing party. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay K. Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Ms. Taft may be contacted at ltaft@ac-lawyers.com

---

Point Taken: The UK Supreme Court Finally Confirms the General Law of Liquidated Damages (LDs)

April 04, 2022 — Vincent C. Zabielski & Julia Kalinina Belcher - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In a long-awaited decision which overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling in the Triple Point Technology vs PTT Public Company case, the UK Supreme Court confirmed the general law of LDs, which is that—absent clear words to the contrary—they accrue up to the date of termination of a contract regardless of whether the contractor completes the work; after that, general damages are recoverable. This approach was held to reflect “commercial reality and the accepted function of liquidated damages.” Although the contract in question was not a construction contract, the decision is equally relevant in the construction sphere. By way of reminder, Triple Point failed to complete the works under Phase 1 of a contract for the design, installation, maintenance and licencing of software. Despite agreeing a revised project plan, PTT gave notice to terminate. Reprinted courtesy of Vincent C. Zabielski, Pillsbury and Julia Kalinina Belcher, Pillsbury Mr. Zabielski may be contacted at vincent.zabielski@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Belcher may be contacted at julia.belcher@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Boston Team Obtains Complete Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in Professional Liability Matter

June 08, 2020 — Kenneth Walton & Oliver Vega - Lewis Brisbois
Boston, Mass. (June 5, 2020) - Boston Partner Kenneth B. Walton and Associate Oliver J. Vega recently obtained a complete defense verdict after a 10-day bench trial in the U.S District Court for the District of South Carolina. The plaintiff in this matter, who is the owner of a newly acquired food processing facility, alleged breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims against our client, a Massachusetts engineering firm, arising out of allegedly defective design and construction management services provided during the renovation of and addition to said facility. Reprinted courtesy of Kenneth Walton, Lewis Brisbois and Oliver Vega, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Walton may be contacted at Ken.Walton@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Vega may be contacted at Oliver.Vega@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Get Your Contracts Lean- Its Better than Dieting

January 13, 2020 — Brian Perlberg, Esq. - ConsensusDocs
I recently took the AGC Lean Construction Educations Program Units 1-7. After studying diligently, I’m happy to say that I passed the exam and earned my CM-Lean credential. Surprisingly, this makes me the first attorney to earn this distinction out of over 1,200 CM-Lean holders. So why is a construction attorney learning about lean? After all, this was my first exam in 20 years since I took the bar. Well, according to McKinsey Global Institute, construction actually became less productive from 1995 through 2009. When it comes to efficiency, construction still lags significantly behind the manufacturing sector and the overall economy. Construction contracts – what we sign and the way in which we negotiate them, or lack thereof – is a principal reason why construction productivity is stagnant. Contracting under an integrated lean project delivery method (ILPD) and incorporating Lean construction tools is the most powerful means to increase efficiency and add-value to owners. Owners are the client’s end-users of construction projects. ConsensusDocs has taken a leadership role in publishing the first standard ILPD contract which is an integrated form of agreement (IFOA). The ConsensusDocs 300 Integrated Project Delivery (IPD™) provides an off-the-shelf solution to contract utilizing lean tools. Not every owner can or is comfortable using an IPD approach. Consequently, ConsensusDocs produced the ConsensusDocs 305 Construction Lean Construction Addendum last year to provide an option for contracting for lean on Construction Management at-Risk and design-build projects. Some people call this approach IPD-lite or IPD’ish. Some disfavor such terms, because those terms have been used loosely on projects that aren’t very Lean. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Perlberg, Esq., Executive Director and Senior Counsel of ConsensusDocs
ConsensusDocs may be contacted at support@consensusdocs.org

---

South Carolina Legislature Redefining Occurrences to Include Construction Defects in CGL Policies

April 01, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFF

The question of what circumstances must be in place for construction defects to be covered in a general commercial liability (CGL) policies is being raised by the courts and the legislature in South Carolina. The Insurance Journal reports that the American Insurance Association as well as the Property and Casualty Insurers Association of America are speaking out on the issue.

The problem seems to be centered on what defines an “occurrence.” CGL policies were not meant to cover faulty workmanship, according to the filing by the South Carolina Supreme Court. In January of this year, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the ruling in Crossmann Communities v Harleysville Mutual declaring that “Respondents cannot show the damage here was the result of an occurrence. Rather, the damage was a direct result and the natural and expected consequence of faulty workmanship; faulty workmanship did not cause an occurrence resulting in damage.” They focused their attention on the word “accident,” stating that there is a fortuity element that is not diminished.



The South Carolina legislature reacted by producing a bill that would add new language directly negating the ruling by the Supreme Court. The South Carolina bill S-431 would change the definition of an occurrence in regards to construction defects as follows: “For a liability insurance policy issued to a construction professional, an ‘occurrence’ means, at a minimum: (1) an accident; or (2) continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful condition or substance. No additional requirement of a fortuitous event is needed to constitute an ‘occurrence.’”



S-431 is currently residing in the House Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.



Read the full story...

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Even Fraud in the Inducement is Tough in Construction

November 06, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have discussed how hard it is in the Commonwealth of Virginia to make out a claim for fraud when a construction contract is involved. On limited exception is where a claim for “fraud in the inducement” is involved. Essentially, such a claim states that one party was hoodwinked into entering the contract in the first place. Because of the initial fraud (for instance misrepresenting the class or existence of a contractor’s license), the courts may bypass the terms of the contract and allow a claim for fraud to go forward. While you may think that this would lead to many claims making it past a Motion to Dismiss, at least one court here in Virginia makes it clear that such claims will not be taken lightly and must be supported by specific and substantial allegations that would support more than just “advertising” or opinion. In County of Grayson v. Ra-Tech Services Inc., the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia reviewed an amended complaint from the Plaintiff seeking to make out a claim for fraud in the inducement based upon the defendant’s statements in support of a proposal that certain brands of equipment would be used. The Court further considered general allegations that the Defendant never intended to provide those particular brands of equipment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---